Association between drinking status and risk of kidney stones among United States adults: NHANES 2007-2018.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between drinking status and kidney stones occurrence among United States (US) adults who consume alcohol. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 2007-2018). Questionnaires yielded information on alcohol consumption and kidney health. Drinking status was categorized into four groups-former, mild, moderate, and heavy-based on alcohol consumption patterns. The aim was to explore the relationship between drinking status and the prevalence of kidney stones occurrence. For this analysis, we examined a group of individuals diagnosed with kidney stones. With survey weights applied, the total weight of the group was 185,690,415. RESULTS: We used logistic regression to measure the relationship between drinking status and the likelihood of developing kidney stones. In a fully adjusted model, former drinkers were less likely to have previously experienced kidney stones (OR 0.762, 95% CI 0.595-0.977, P < 0.05). In subgroup analysis, heavy alcohol consumption was associated with a significantly reduced likelihood of kidney stones occurrence in various populations. The adjusted odds ratios (with 95% confidence intervals) of kidney stones risk for heavy alcohol consumption were 0.745 (0.566-0.981) for young individuals, 0.566 (0.342-0.939) for older individuals, 0.708 (0.510-0.981) for individuals of white race, 0.468 (0.269-0.817) for individuals with underweight/normal BMI, 0.192 (0.066-0.560) for widowed people, 0.538 (0.343-0.843) for smoking individuals, 0.749 (0.595-0.941) for individuals without a cancer history, and 0.724 (0.566-0.925) for individuals without a stroke history. CONCLUSIONS: In US adults who consume alcohol, a negative linear relationship is apparent between drinking status and the prevalence of kidney stones, with heavy drinking showing a lower prevalence compared to former drinkers. However, the causal relationship between drinking status and kidney stones requires further investigation in future research endeavors.

Meta-analysis on clinical efficacy of ringheaded thumbtack needle in the treatment of allergic rhinitis. / 揿针治疗变应性鼻炎临床疗效的Meta分析.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ringheaded thrumbtack needle in the treatment of allergic rhinitis (AR). METHODS: Clinical studies about treatment of AR with ringheaded thrumbtack needle were searched from databases of CNKI, Wanfang, China Science and Technology Journal, China Biology Medicine disc, PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from their inception to November 2022. Two researchers independently screened the literature and collected related information. The total effective rate, visual analogue scale (VAS) for AR, rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (RQLQ), and recurrence rate were the main outcome indicators. Secondary outcome indicators included quantitative scores of symptoms and signs, 'quartering' symptom evaluation scale, etc. All the included studies were subjected to Meta-analysis using Stata software. RESULTS: A total of 22 clinical studies involving 1 491 participants were included. The results of Meta-analysis indicated that the total effective rate of ringheaded thrumbtack needle in the treatment of AR was higher than that of traditional Chinese and Western medicine ï¼»RR=1.20, 95%CI (1.14, 1.26), P<0.001ï¼½, and recurrence rate is lower than conventional therapy ï¼»OR=0.35, 95%CI (0.14, 0.89), P=0.027ï¼½. Moreover, The VAS score ï¼»WMD=-1.30, 95%CI (-1.85, -0.75), P<0.001ï¼½ and RQLQ score ï¼»WMD=-6.75, 95%CI (-12.74, -0.76), P=0.027ï¼½ of AR treated by ringheaded thrumbtack needle were lower than those of traditional Chinese and Western medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Ringheaded thrumbtack needle can improve the total effective rate, reduce the disease recurrence, and improve the symptoms of discomfort when AR outbreaks, and has no significant adverse reactions. However, the reliability is limited. Thus, it is still necessary to improve the level of evidence quality by including researches with large samples, rigorous design and international standards.